Friday, May 4, 2012

Of course all dogs are not dangerous but the Government will abuse the dangerous dogs act to have ALL dogs chipped bringing us one step closer to babies chipped at birth. They cannot control the internet so they want to control us through a chip that can program activists who believe in free speech, whats left of it that is.

Compulsory microchips to curb the menace of dangerous dogs

Dog owners could be forced to have their animals microchipped when they are born or sold, under Government plans to be announced next week.

There is concern about dangerous dogs being used as weapons and status symbolsPhoto: Getty

Ministers will announce measures on Monday that will allow dogs to be traced back to their owners, who will then be held accountable for the animal’s behaviour.

Ministers have been under growing pressure to act because of concern about dangerous dogs being used as weapons and status symbols. The Government has already missed its own deadline on bringing in new rules on dogs.

Groups including the RSPCA have called for compulsory microchipping to create a clear link between dogs and their owners. However, Coalition sources said the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [Defra] will announce a consultation on rules that will ensure all dogs are eventually microchipped.

One option is for all puppies to be chipped shortly after birth. Another is for chipping to be compulsory before a dog can be sold.

Existing unchipped adult dogs will not have to be chipped, but ministers believe the effect of the new rules will be near-universal coverage of British dogs within little more than a decade.

The chips hold an electronic record of their owner’s name and addresses, as well as a unique identity number. Implanting can cost as little as £5. Last year, a survey suggested there are about 8.3 million dogs in Britain. More than half already have microchips. Animal charities say there is a growing problem of people abandoning dogs. Defra estimates there are about 125,000 strays in England and Wales. About 6,000 healthy animals are destroyed each year because they have no permanent home. The Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in London said it took in an average of 14 dogs every day last year. Ministers had promised a statement on dangerous dog laws before Parliament began its Easter recess in March. That deadline was missed, prompting criticism from Labour and animal charities. Claire Horton, the chief executive of the Battersea home, said ministers had to make up lost ground on the issue. “The number of dogs coming into Battersea is a huge concern to us when we are powerless to trace irresponsible owners,” she said. “We will continue to do all we can to help these animals but we really need to know that the Government is playing its part in helping to sort the dog crisis on our streets.” Lord Taylor of Holbeach, an environment minister, told Parliament in February that ministers “see microchipping as part of the measures we can do to address an increasing problem”. Defra last night confirmed that a statement will be made to Parliament about dangerous dogs on Monday, but declined to discuss the details. A spokesman said: “We will very shortly be announcing measures to tackle the problems caused by irresponsible dog owners. This is an issue we take extremely seriously and so have taken the time necessary to get the policy right.”

Close to a year ago I wrote a piece for UFO Digest on the Mark of the Beast. At that time I looked at it possibly being a microchip inserted into the human body so the person could be tracked 24/7/12/365, along with every transactions of theirs being recorded on a computer somewhere in the world. It sounds like a nightmare becoming a reality in waking life. With technology advancing the way it is, I find it a good thing to be aware of what is coming down the road towards us. I've suspected for years that authorities have had technology for decades before it comes part of public life. An example is email and the Inter-Net. I was told 10 years ago that the U.S. military used both starting in 1968 to quickly relay messages in time of war. So what has been in store under the guise of surveillance and keeping track of the Great Unwashed?

What if a person will refuse to take the microchip? I can see the those people being shamed via peer pressure to have it implanted into their body. If they are strong enough to resist that, I think they will be exiled from society into concentration camps, have their civil liberties suspended after being branded dissidents.

Some employees may need to be microchipped to gain access to secure areas in their work place. This microchip could be used as a loyalty mark identifying the home region of every citizen on Earth. After being led to a central location, how many people will accept the microchip willingly out of a sense of duty or obligation to family, country, political party or religious leaders?

I can see the media outlets of all kinds playing a direct role in getting people accepting the microchip. I've wondered how many of the reports of terrorism, viruses and so on are exaggerated so people get uptight and live in constant fear. People are busy enough with meaningless busywork on a daily basis so they don't have time to search for the truth. As a result they will just settle for the "official facts."\

Back in the 05/20/06 issue of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, it was reported that various products were implanted with radio frequency devices or RFD's. This was done to keep track of the products movement after purchase. These RFD's are supposed to be found in clothing items, foodstuffs and various other objects.

It's been said to be able to keep track of customer shopping habits and which items are kept in their homes. Also they are presumed to be capable of telling which areas of the store customers spend most of their time in and which items they put into the cart they use. I heard that rumor has it that RFD's allow companies to "look" inside purses and backpacks to see what is being carried in them. All in the name of Big Marketing. It's bad enough that marketing departments use it but what happens if law enforcement agencies or security firms uses it to keep track of people?

Once the general public is injected, en masse, with the microchip smaller than the smallest ant, it's no longer funny.

Neither would the extent of the manipulation behind it be amusing.

I was surprised that just after 9/11 the push for the microchip wasn't hurried along considering the shock people were in. I remember as soon as the two towers were hit, two slogans, "Attack On America" and "War On Terrorism" were on the airwaves.

I found it strange, if not suspicious, that these two slogans were implemented right after the disaster. Why so quick?How much of what I write here remains conspiracy theory, urban legend or the real thing remains to be seen.

Implications: Newborns' DNA is being stored by hospitals without proper parental consent

DNA taken from millions of newborn babies is quietly being stored by hospitals without proper parental consent.
The blood samples, taken in heel-prick tests that check for serious conditions, can be accessed by police, coroners and medical researchers, Freedom of Information Act requests reveal.
Despite Government guidelines advising hospitals to destroy the DNA after five years, some facilities have kept them on file for more than 20 years – prompting fears that a covert database is being created.
Campaigners claim the 32-page leaflets - explaining that newborns’ DNA will be stored – handed to new mothers, does not constitute consent for hospitals to carry out further research.
Nor, they say, does it make clear the samples could be accessed by the police to identify people involved in crimes.
And, although the DNA of each child is stored anonymously, The UK Newborn Screening Programme Centre, which oversees the use of samples, say they could be linked to hospital admissions and the child could be identified that way.
The samples can also be accessed by private medical companies and have been used for genetic research and mass screening for diseases such as HIV in babies’ mothers.
Dr Helen Wallace, of GeneWatch, told the Sunday Times: 'We do not want to put mothers off having these tests as they are very important for their babies’ health, but the key issue really is how long these samples are being stored for. Some hospitals are hanging on to them indefinitely.
‘Giving a new mother a leaflet does not amount to informed consent. We would like to see a system brought in across the whole country which would see all samples destroyed after a certain period of time.’
She added: ‘No one who has just given birth is in a state to understand the full implications of how their baby’s genome might be used in future.’
More than 700,000 babies aged five to eight days old are screened every year for a number of serious conditions such as sickle cell and cystic fibrosis.

Database: About 120,000 samples are taken every year at Great Ormond Street hospital in London, a practice it began in 1990

According to FOI requests, four million samples are currently being held at four centres in the country.
One million have been in storage dating from 1984 at Central Manchester University Hospitals Trust. It has about 250,000 in its laboratory which it plans to store indefinitely.
Cambridge University Hospitals Trust stores 400,000 samples at Endex archives in Ipswich and 62,800 in its labs – they are kept for 18 years.
About 120,000 samples are taken every year at Great Ormond Street hospital in London, a practice it began in 1990. It confirmed that it had occasionally handed samples, which it keeps for 20 years, to coroners but not to the police.
In order to obtain access to an individual sample, officers would need to obtain a court order.
Campaigners have urged Andrew Lansley, the new Secretary of State for Health, to launch an inquiry into the practice.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: ‘As someone who gave consent for my own baby to be tested, I’m horrified that anyone would breach my trust, keep my child’s sample for years on end and use it for all sorts of extraneous purposes,’ she said.
‘If they think that thrusting a leaflet in an exhausted new mother’s hand creates informed consent, they can look forward to a flurry of claims under article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
‘Liberty is writing to the new health secretary to ask for an urgent investigation.’
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: ‘Blood spot screening is an important test carried out to identify serious conditions in newborn babies.
'Research on blood spots left over once screening tests have been completed have led to medical advances benefiting children and their families.
‘There are strict safeguards in place that protect the sample once it is taken. Parents are well informed about newborn screening and the sample storage. They receive a number of information packs during pregnancy and afterbirth.’